Thread by @joshua_landis

'Al Qaeda Is on our Side': How Obama-Biden team knowingly empowered terrorists in Syria.

This article by @aaronjmate is a tour de force.

Thread =>

mate.substack.com/p/al-qaeda-is-…

1/9 The only element missing in @aaronjmate 's excellent article on how the US partnered with al-Qaida in Syria is the CIA's strategy

Two interviews explain CIA strategy. It was to force Assad's exit without destroying the Syrian military.
cbsnews.com/news/the-brief…

2/9 In September 2013, the number two man at the CIA, Mike Morell, explained on “60 Minutes” that the CIA no longer advocated the defeat or destruction of the Syrian military for fear that ISIS might replace it. He states that: =>

3/9 “the end of the civil war in Syria could offer one of two bad outcomes: a stronger more brutal Assad regime or a rebel government influenced by al Qaeda.” He explained that the al-Qaida linked rebel militias in Syria were “the most effective organizations on the battlefield”

4/9 And “because they're so good at fighting,” many of the more moderate militias joined forces with them.

For this reason, Morell explained, Obama feared “the breakup of the state of Syria” and the “collapse of the central government,” b/c it would present =>

5/9 an “opportunity for al-Qaeda to have a safe haven in Syria.” Only “the institution of the Syrian military and the institutions of the Syrian security services” could “defeat al Qaeda,” Morell concluded. To preserve the integrity of the Syrian Army, Morell stated, the US =>

6/9 needed to encourage “a negotiated settlement b/n the opposition & the regime that allows for a political transition that keeps the institutions of the state intact.”

U.S. policy was to strike a delicate balance between the Syrian military and the opposition militias. =>

7/9 Washington wanted to arm the opposition enough to force the Syrian army to the negotiating table without destroying it. In this way, the US hoped to encourage Assad to step aside. Morell explained that this delicate balance was necessary because =>

8/9 “the Syrian military and the institutions of the Syrian security services” are required “to defeat al Qaeda when this is done.” But in September 2013, Morell insisted that to get the balance correct, more arms were necessary for the opposition. Why? =>

9/9 Because “Assad feels he's winning, & the US is not supplying enough support to the opposition to bring Assad to the negotiating table,” Morell calculated. Thus, in Sept. 2013, the CIA policy was to direct more arms to the Syrian opposition through Operation Timber Sycamore =>

CIA Chief Brennan restated in Mar 2015 the US's strategy outlined by Morell in 2013. =>

timesofisrael.com/cia-us-does-no…

We must conclude that US strategy in Syria was counterproductive. It led to:

1. Russia's entrance into Syria w US acquiescence to shore up Assad
2. US abandonment of Arab opp. which was dominated by al-Qaida & ISIS
3. Arming of Syria's Kurds to kill ISIS while RU helped Assad

4. A prolonged civil war with Assad winning at the end
5. The division of Syria into three quasi independent states
6. The establishment of an independent Kurdish run state in the NE, which the US will eventually abandon, as it cannot be sustained w/o US military protection.

7. The establishment of a quasi-indep'nt state in NW Syria run by Abu Mohammad al-Golani. He was a sidekick of Caliph Baghdadi, sent to Syria to establish the Syrian part of ISIS, He eventually broke away from ISIS & pledged allegiance to al-Qaida, & then disowned it for Turkey.

8. The US can claim some success in Syria, because the country is fragmented, poor, and a burden on both Russia and Iran. It is too weak to hurt its neighbors militarily, although it will continue to shed refugees b/c of its desperate poverty.